So just what was specifically improper or unfair about your own UDRP case? You keep saying how unfair it is, but I fail to see any specific unfairness about your case other than the general unfairness of the UDRP as a whole, but now you're saying that you think the policy is actually good. Your own case, where you registered various names specifically referring to AOL's Instant Messenger, hardly compares in unfairness to cases where generic words like "Canadian" and "heel" were allowed to be reverse-hijacked by trademark owners.

No, there is no direct comparison as such, but each case you refer to is simply yet more and more PROOF and ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE that many prominent UDRP Panelists are biased and partial in their 'so-called' judgments